A new study has found that carbon emissions account for just 23% of a typical apparel product’s environmental footprint, packaging represents less than 2%, distribution from factory to consumer is less than 5%, and that it is raw materials and manufacturing that on average account for more than 90% of a fashion product’s environmental footprint.
- Raw material type and origin both play major roles in a fashion product’s impact. Similarly, certain manufacturing processes along the product supply chain such as dyeing/colouring heavily sway a product’s global footprint.
The study by Glimpact, a digital platform enabling the assessment of the overall environmental impact of products and organisations based on the new scientific doctrine of the EU, assessed the environmental footprint of over 100 products to identify comprehensive trends in the fashion industry according to the Apparel & Footwear PEFCR version 2.0 which sets evaluation guidelines for apparel products assessed with the PEF method.
- To apply the initial findings of this study to specific cases, Glimpact’s newly released Global Impact Score tool was used, along with publicly available data, to evaluate the environmental impact of six different products currently for sale from Patagonia, Reformation, Alo Yoga, Ralph Lauren and H&M.
THE FINDINGS: Over 75% of environmental impact from apparel products is not traced to carbon emissions: One key insight from this study is the different impacts a product has on the environment.
- With a comprehensive vision of environmental footprint defined by the PEF method, it is revealed that climate change, while important, is not always the main driver.
- In fact, for the more than 100 products evaluated, carbon footprint on average only accounted for 23% of the overall environmental footprint. This means over 75% of a product’s impact can be traced to other ecological indicators.
- Fine particle emissions is the largest contributor, accounting for about 35% of an apparel product’s impact on average, with fossil fuel use, acidification, and water use accounting for another 26% of overall impact.
On average, 90% of apparel product impact comes from specific manufacturing processes and raw material production: Of over 100 apparel products assessed, on average, packaging represents less than 2% of a product’s environmental footprint and distribution from factory to consumer is less than 5%.
- In order to effectively reduce environmental impact, it is important to first identify where the largest areas of environmental impact, or “hotspots”, are coming from. To start, the entire lifecycle of a fashion product, from cradle to grave, must be considered.
- For fashion products, the full lifecycle consists of the raw material stage, including the production of the raw materials themselves and any associated processing of those materials, the manufacturing stage, the product packaging, the distribution of the product to the consumer, the use of the product including washing and drying, and the product end-of-life.
- When considering environmental impact over the course of a fashion product’s lifecycle, it is apparent that the raw material and manufacturing lifecycle stages are the hotspots for environmental impact.
- Raw materials and manufacturing on average account for more than 90% of a fashion product’s environmental footprint. Raw material production on average accounts for 40% and various industrial processes account on average for 50% of an apparel product’s environmental impact.
- More specifically, raw material type and origin both play major roles in a fashion product’s impact. Similarly, certain manufacturing processes along the product supply chain such as dyeing/colouring heavily sway a product’s global footprint.
- When viewed through a comprehensive lens, a fashion product’s packaging and distribution have a very small impact on the overall footprint. Of the apparel products assessed, on average, packaging is less than 2% of overall impact and distribution from factory to consumer, unless air freight is used, is typically less than 5% of overall impact. This means that for fashion brands who are working to be more environmentally friendly, sustainability initiatives around product packaging or distribution do not have the potential to make much of a real difference.
- If an apparel product is made halfway around the world, there is far more potential for impact reduction when you focus on its manufacturing and production conditions rather than on the distribution to the customer.
- Air freight used during the distribution process has the potential to be a hotspot for an apparel product. Identification of the impact hotspots and understanding where impact is low relative to the life of a product ensures that actions taken by brands can have the maximum potential for impact reduction.
The same raw material impact varies widely depending on origin and production conditions: Labels like “organic” do not necessarily correlate to positive environmental performance. Unsurprisingly, different materials have varying environmental impacts.
- For instance, just because a product is cotton does not mean that it is good or bad for the environment. There is a huge disparity in the environmental impact of cotton which varies based on numerous factors that include where it is grown, how it is grown, different farming practices, and the like.
- Again, when measuring with a comprehensive footprint, it is revealed that organic cotton, which is grown without the use of synthetic chemical pesticides or fertilizers and is always safer for the health of the workers cultivating the crop, is not necessarily better for the environment than conventionally grown cotton.
For over 100 apparel products, the dyeing process alone contributes anywhere from 15–60% of the product’s total impact: The dyeing, knitting and weaving processes are all hotspots, and conversely product assembly processes represent less than 4% of total footprint.
- Aside from the raw material itself, certain manufacturing processes have an outsized impact on the footprint of a product.
- Dyeing in particular was revealed to be an impact hotspot and therefore potential action leverage. For the apparel products assessed in the global study, dyeing was responsible for anywhere from 15% all the way up to 60% of the overall product impact.
- PEF assessments of apparel products also reveal that the assembly processes of an apparel product, including cutting and sewing, are not major contributors to environmental footprint. Identification of these processes with minimal stake helps to inform where impact reduction actions should be taken.
